Funny Events of the "Woke" world

[Silvanus]

Can you not read? The flu literally vanished.

Can you? What I can see is a rhetorical headline-- referring to a drastic dip as the disease 'vanishing'. Yet in a very literal sense, it absolutely did not vanish, and people continued to catch it.

I said the 2020-21 flu season. That data would be from the 2019-2020 flu season. Covid came in about March-ish so you had some normal flu activity in the beginning of 2020.

You'll notice I provided two data points: one for the first half of 2020, and one for 2021.

But but but the covid lockdowns and restrictions, did those not work? Wouldn't mismanagement of doing that result in better results than Sweden not literally doing anything? What about that "rule of six"? Did that not work? Nor did it make any sense...

For one thing, Sweden didn't do nothing. It implemented measures later than most other countries, but it didn't just sit on its hands.

Secondly, a mismanaged approach can indeed be worse than a minimalist approach. The UK's mismanagement was severe.

Thirdly, how many excess deaths it had will be the result of myriad factors. One will be the public health policy, but one will also be the relative severity of the pandemic. The UK had more to deal with.

A 10% reduction on 100,000 is a better mitigation than a 5% reduction on 20,000, even though 90,000 is a higher number than 19,000.

I control-Fed "sweden" and nothing was in there.

In my... source about the UK's influenza uptick after covid? Why would it be there? Are you capable of looking up anything yourself, or just incessantly demanding stats that you then refuse to accept?

Just because they said that doesn't make it true

K. If you want to argue against your own source, leave me out of it.

That's the point, I was using the numbers as an example. Does the UK normally have 25% more cold deaths than Sweden? Or did the UK have 25% more than their normal compared to Sweden?

Compared to the UK's baseline. So it was another source of higher excess deaths during that year. This is all clear if you actually read the posts.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Can you? What I can see is a rhetorical headline-- referring to a drastic dip as the disease 'vanishing'. Yet in a very literal sense, it absolutely did not vanish, and people continued to catch it.



You'll notice I provided two data points: one for the first half of 2020, and one for 2021.




For one thing, Sweden didn't do nothing. It implemented measures later than most other countries, but it didn't just sit on its hands.

Secondly, a mismanaged approach can indeed be worse than a minimalist approach. The UK's mismanagement was severe.

Thirdly, how many excess deaths it had will be the result of myriad factors. One will be the public health policy, but one will also be the relative severity of the pandemic. The UK had more to deal with.

A 10% reduction on 100,000 is a better mitigation than a 5% reduction on 20,000, even though 90,000 is a higher number than 19,000.



In my... source about the UK's influenza uptick after covid? Why would it be there? Are you capable of looking up anything yourself, or just incessantly demanding stats that you then refuse to accept?



K. If you want to argue against your own source, leave me out of it.



Compared to the UK's baseline. So it was another source of higher excess deaths during that year. This is all clear if you actually read the posts.

The flu was below 1% of what is expected; it vanished in essence (not literally literally).

I see you provided something for the 22-23 flu season.

Sweden did what was against "science" and basically did the Great Barrington Declaration that was shunned as being dangerous. Protecting the vulnerable, the standard historical response, was what sane people were asking for. Didn't the UK mask? I thought masking was supposed significantly mitigate covid? Why did the UK have more to deal with, you just had to follow a common sense approach and protect the vulnerable. The stupid "rule of six" didn't follow science or logic. When you implement dumbass things like that, the public stops listening to you (even if you get it right later on). That's what happened in the US, tons of dumb rules that kept constantly changing that everyone (even kids) knew was bullshit (like you have to wear a mask to your seat at the restaurant and can take it off once you sit down). The UK couldn't have been worse than the US.

I understand you have to go based on percentages or per capitas or else the bigger country will obviously look worse in total numbers. I never claimed otherwise.

You showing the UK had X amount of flu deaths is meaningless, there's no context or comparison. I can show Sweden's heart disease deaths acting like it adversely affect their excess deaths, but just the number without context is meaningless. It's on you to show how the UK (or whatever European peer country that Sweden outperformed) experienced some significant event(s) that would cause other deaths (non-covid related) to be significantly higher than normal and that's the reason why Sweden did better in excess deaths but worse in covid.

I posted the source for the objective data, that the editorial content (which keep confusing like you not liking the Reason article even though they didn't really say anything wrong).

That's why I asked more questions about that. So UK had 25% higher cold deaths than usual, but what was the cause? Because the cause can be covid restrictions as I already mentioned. I'd be thinking UK and Sweden have similar winters and the winter being colder in UK would also have Sweden having a colder winter.

 

[Silvanus]

The flu was below 1% of what is expected; it vanished in essence (not literally literally).

Let's see your numbers and sources, then, since you're refusing to believe the ONS.

Sweden did what was against "science" and basically did the Great Barrington Declaration that was shunned as being dangerous. Protecting the vulnerable, the standard historical response, was what sane people were asking for. Didn't the UK mask? I thought masking was supposed significantly mitigate covid? Why did the UK have more to deal with, you just had to follow a common sense approach and protect the vulnerable. The stupid "rule of six" didn't follow science or logic. When you implement dumbass things like that, the public stops listening to you (even if you get it right later on). That's what happened in the US, tons of dumb rules that kept constantly changing that everyone (even kids) knew was bullshit (like you have to wear a mask to your seat at the restaurant and can take it off once you sit down). The UK couldn't have been worse than the US.

All just empty ranting, endless repetition of what you've baselessly claimed a dozen times before, not addressing what was actually said.

I understand you have to go based on percentages or per capitas or else the bigger country will obviously look worse in total numbers. I never claimed otherwise.

Yet even adjusting for population, the problem remains: that all other variables, such as the relative severity of the pandemic, are completely disregarded.

You showing the UK had X amount of flu deaths is meaningless, there's no context or comparison.

No, you've simply forgotten why this was originally brought up. If I show the UK had a high amount of excess deaths attributable to influenza-- higher than Sweden-- that immediately blows a hole in your source's claim that any higher excess deaths can only be down to covid policies.

That's why I asked more questions about that. So UK had 25% higher cold deaths than usual, but what was the cause? Because the cause can be covid restrictions as I already mentioned. I'd be thinking UK and Sweden have similar winters and the winter being colder in UK would also have Sweden having a colder winter.

So literally all you have as counterargument is speculation, attributing it to covid policies without a single causal link or credible connection. Brilliant.

 

[Chimpzy]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/interactive/2023/assault-weapons-ban-debate-gun-control-ar-15-mass-shootings/

TLDR: the cheques stopped clearing

 

[Gergar12]

Not all of his policies are bad...

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Let's see your numbers and sources, then, since you're refusing to believe the ONS.



All just empty ranting, endless repetition of what you've baselessly claimed a dozen times before, not addressing what was actually said.



Yet even adjusting for population, the problem remains: that all other variables, such as the relative severity of the pandemic, are completely disregarded.



No, you've simply forgotten why this was originally brought up. If I show the UK had a high amount of excess deaths attributable to influenza-- higher than Sweden-- that immediately blows a hole in your source's claim that any higher excess deaths can only be down to covid policies.



So literally all you have as counterargument is speculation, attributing it to covid policies without a single causal link or credible connection. Brilliant.

The UK's "rule of six" was not based on any actual science. I don't know why you defend policy that doesn't make sense.

What are you even talking about? Why would UK or France or whatever European country experience a more severe covid pandemic than Sweden on a per capita basis?

Yet, you've not shown that. Nor is the vanished flu going to have a major impact on excess deaths during the pandemic because the flu causes far less death to begin so even if the UK had 25% more flu deaths than Sweden (compared to the average expected), that's a drop in the bucket in comparison. Covid is going to dominate the change in excess deaths during the pandemic. It's the better overall metric for the covid pandemic, even the WHO has said that. I don't know why you're so hellbent on using the worse metric. Sweden objectively overcounted covid deaths in comparison to how the UK or US counted covid deaths, so using that comparison is worse.

That's why I asked why the UK had more cold deaths than usual. You didn't say why. Covid lockdowns/restrictions had a massive impact on some many aspects of society, that is why the people that were against lockdowns/restrictions were against them, not because of the single covid death metric but because of everything else they would affect.

 

[Silvanus]

View attachment 10390

Coolsies. Now how does this help your case about how the UK compares to Sweden? Why does it trump the data from the ONS?

The UK's "rule of six" was not based on any actual science. I don't know why you defend policy that doesn't make sense.

I've literally not said a single word about the rule of six.

What are you even talking about? Why would UK or France or whatever European country experience a more severe covid pandemic than Sweden on a per capita basis?

!? Are you joking? Do you think every country faced exactly the same level of severity from the pandemic? Regardless of geography, migration rates, tourism, population density, transport networks, urbanisation, pre-existing healthcare infrastructure, past outbreaks-- there are literally hundreds of reasons for the severity of the pandemic to differ from country to country before we ever factor in the public health policies.

Yet, you've not shown that.

I've provided a source directly stating rates of influenza rose significantly immediately post-pandemic in the UK. If you refuse to accept the official numbers, there's nothing I can do.

That's why I asked why the UK had more cold deaths than usual. You didn't say why.

Because that's irrelevant to whether the UK experienced more excess deaths from cold than Sweden. And your speculation that it was all down to covid policies doesn't count for shit unless you can actually demonstrate a causal link.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Coolsies. Now how does this help your case about how the UK compares to Sweden? Why does it trump the data from the ONS?



I've literally not said a single word about the rule of six.



!? Are you joking? Do you think every country faced exactly the same level of severity from the pandemic? Regardless of geography, migration rates, tourism, population density, transport networks, urbanisation, pre-existing healthcare infrastructure, past outbreaks-- there are literally hundreds of reasons for the severity of the pandemic to differ from country to country before we ever factor in the public health policies.



I've provided a source directly stating rates of influenza rose significantly immediately post-pandemic in the UK. If you refuse to accept the official numbers, there's nothing I can do.



Because that's irrelevant to whether the UK experienced more excess deaths from cold than Sweden. And your speculation that it was all down to covid policies doesn't count for shit unless you can actually demonstrate a causal link.

None of the ONS data you provided goes against what happened in the US (or Sweden).

You said pointing out dumb policy choices is just me rambling, no it's pointing out dumb policy choices.

And how does using covid deaths even that out better than excess deaths? Also, there's countries that are more similar than others, many of the countries in the EU are comparable to a decent degree. Also, tourism, really? You know that every country had public health policy for people entering the country.

The time the pandemic was the pandemic, the flu was not around nor have you shown data showing the UK experienced some "twindemic" that never happened...
Also, a perfect example of fear mongering and not understanding science and viral interference by the way.

Fearing a ‘Twindemic,’ Health Experts Push Urgently for Flu Shots (Published 2020)

There’s no vaccine for Covid-19, but there’s one for influenza. With the season’s first doses now shipping, officials are struggling over how to get people to take it.

www.nytimes.com

Why a Coronavirus-Flu ‘Twindemic’ May Never Happen (Published 2022)

Scientists are exploring a theory suggesting that exposure to one respiratory virus helps the body fend off competing pathogens.

www.nytimes.com

That's why I asked you the reason... A lot of things are tied to covid lockdowns and restrictions like how traffic deaths increased in the US even though total accidents were down over 20%, it was the covid restrictions that caused that. And it's pretty easy to come up with reasons on how covid restrictions could increase cold deaths like libraries being closed (due to covid) and that would be where people would go to warm up or maybe people lost their jobs and couldn't afford the heating bill. I don't know about the UK, that's why I asked. I can tell you that would be the reasons for the US if we had more cold deaths that winter.

 

[Silvanus]

None of the ONS data you provided goes against what happened in the US (or Sweden).

Beeeeecause it relates to the UK you mean? Did you forget we were talking about the UK as well?

You said pointing out dumb policy choices is just me rambling, no it's pointing out dumb policy choices.

OK? You mean like the rule of six, which I never said a single word about? If you want to point out dumb policy choices that have nothing to do with me or our discussion, feel free I suppose, but I'd prefer you didn't do it in responses to me.

And how does using covid deaths even that out better than excess deaths?

Shifting goalposts again. Measuring covid deaths against projection is at least going to filter out most completely irrelevant data.

Also, there's countries that are more similar than others, many of the countries in the EU are comparable to a decent degree. Also, tourism, really? You know that every country had public health policy for people entering the country.

Lol. And you know that the virus was circulating long before travel restrictions were in place in Britain, US, or Sweden.

The time the pandemic was the pandemic, the flu was not around nor have you shown data showing the UK experienced some "twindemic" that never happened..

Why would I try to show that? That's not my position-- I already said that influenza was far lower. What I have provided has shown that the flu didn't vanish in the UK, and that it still impacted excess deaths in a significant way in 2020 and 2021.

That's why I asked you the reason...

Well no, you just rampantly speculated that everything is attributable to public health policies, because you have an axe to grind.

 

[Gergar12]

Obama, and I agree on Gay a funny day indeed,

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Beeeeecause it relates to the UK you mean? Did you forget we were talking about the UK as well?
Why would I try to show that? That's not my position-- I already said that influenza was far lower. What I have provided has shown that the flu didn't vanish in the UK, and that it still impacted excess deaths in a significant way in 2020 and 2021.


OK? You mean like the rule of six, which I never said a single word about? If you want to point out dumb policy choices that have nothing to do with me or our discussion, feel free I suppose, but I'd prefer you didn't do it in responses to me.



Shifting goalposts again. Measuring covid deaths against projection is at least going to filter out most completely irrelevant data.



Lol. And you know that the virus was circulating long before travel restrictions were in place in Britain, US, or Sweden.



Well no, you just rampantly speculated that everything is attributable to public health policies, because you have an axe to grind.

You didn't show the UK experienced more flu deaths than anyone else during that period. You just showed data showing the UK had flu deaths, so did Sweden and the US. There's no context.

Covid's impact isn't just in covid deaths. Also, the excess deaths show missed covid deaths and normalize how countries counted covid deaths. If you wanna go just by covid deaths, then, you know, Japan.

Not putting in those travel restrictions is also covid public health policy. Sure, you could say that it would be jumping the gun to impose travel restrictions when the virus was only known to be in China (even though international travel is massive). However, once covid popped in South Korea (IIRC the 1st country after China that had a 1st big wave), it was just a matter of time before it hit everywhere else. Choosing not to impose travel restrictions at that point is still public health policy for covid. Amount of tourism in a country isn't some big determinant for excess deaths. Excess deaths is a STARTING POINT, not the final word or anything.

Because, unless their was some unusual weather event(s) that the UK faced in the winter that Sweden didn't or the UK didn't have enough energy/gas for heating that winter (and Sweden did), any increased cold deaths are probably due to the massive changes imposed by covid measures. What other explanations are there then?

 

[Silvanus]

You didn't show the UK experienced more flu deaths than anyone else during that period. You just showed data showing the UK had flu deaths, so did Sweden and the US. There's no context.

I showed the UK experienced a significant uptick, to a pretty damn severe level, immediately following the worst stage of the pandemic. I'm sorry if you don't have the stats for Sweden-- seeing as you're the one who's specifically interested in Sweden's response.

Covid's impact isn't just in covid deaths.

Nor is covid's impact just the impact of the public health policies implemented in response, as your source wants to pretend.

Also, the excess deaths show missed covid deaths and normalize how countries counted covid deaths.

Lol, no it doesn't. It doesn't normalise anything-- it just calculates a baseline and then measures anything over it, regardless of source.

Not putting in those travel restrictions is also covid public health policy.

O.....k? This entire long rambling paragraph is pretty irrelevant to the point. Which is that dozens of factors influenced the severity of covid facing each country before we even factor the public health policies in.

Because, unless their was some unusual weather event(s) that the UK faced in the winter that Sweden didn't or the UK didn't have enough energy/gas for heating that winter (and Sweden did), any increased cold deaths are probably due to the massive changes imposed by covid measures. What other explanations are there then?

Do you simply not understand that weather shifts? Or do you just want to assume absolutely everything is down to covid policies? Do you have any basis to make that causative link whatsoever?

 

[Gergar12]

Worst plane ever.

Says the Russian MoD, Chinese trolls, the far left, the far right, and every other idiot.

-Not talking about anyone here, mostly the foreign trolls.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Worst plane ever.

Says the Russian MoD, Chinese trolls, the far left, the far right, and every other idiot.

The typical person does not really understand how enormous the difference is between aircraft in world war 2 or vietnam and aircraft today. People still think dogfighting is a thing because it seems cool and romantic and matches up with films like Top Gun, when in reality by the time 5th generation fighters are close enough to dogfight each other the engagement is probably over and one side is destroyed.

The other thing about the F35 is that it's being exported basically everywhere. Countries with large domestic aerospace industries which could hypothetically develop 5th generation fighters are choosing to just buy F35 instead. These are people who actually have access to all the classified information about its performance. I suspect they are more qualified to make an informed decision than some random dude on the internet who thinks planes would be better if we took out the radar.

 

[Gordon_4]

The typical person does not really understand how enormous the difference is between aircraft in world war 2 or vietnam and aircraft today. People still think dogfighting is a thing because it seems cool and romantic and matches up with films like Top Gun, when in reality by the time 5th generation fighters are close enough to dogfight each other the engagement is probably over and one side is destroyed.

Or something has gone just catastrophically wrong.

 

[Gergar12]

The typical person does not really understand how enormous the difference is between aircraft in world war 2 or vietnam and aircraft today. People still think dogfighting is a thing because it seems cool and romantic and matches up with films like Top Gun, when in reality by the time 5th generation fighters are close enough to dogfight each other the engagement is probably over and one side is destroyed.

The other thing about the F35 is that it's being exported basically everywhere. Countries with large domestic aerospace industries which could hypothetically develop 5th generation fighters are choosing to just buy F35 instead. These are people who actually have access to all the classified information about its performance. I suspect they are more qualified to make an informed decision than some random dude on the internet who thinks planes would be better if we took out the radar.

Or something has gone just catastrophically wrong.

I was one of those people who saw the F-22 as the only thing we needed to build. Then I saw the videos on this jet, and then Bernie Sanders someone who hates military projects that are inefficient endorsed it for the Vermont National Guard. Then I posted on here, and almost half the forums disagreed. Because the US is not going to make a plane that can't fight.

 

[Gordon_4]

I was one of those people who saw the F-22 as the only thing we needed to build. Then I saw the videos on this jet, and then Bernie Sanders someone who hates military projects that are inefficient endorsed it for the Vermont National Guard. Then I posted on here, and almost half the forums disagreed. Because the US is not going to make a plane that can't fight.

I think you misunderstand. Neither, well I'm not at any rate, saying that the F-35's ability to dogfight is a waste of an inclusion nor is teaching its pilots to do it because it was a hard learned lesson in Vietnam and both the Top Gun and Red Flag schools will likely continue to each it. What we're saying is with the combination of the stealth technology, assisted over the horizon targeting systems for missiles and the like, an actual dogfight breaking out between two sets of peer fifth (or indeed any) generation of fighter means that shit has truly rocketed fanward.

Like if you deck that fucker out with internal AND external hard points in use, it can carry a fair whack of ordnance. So for it to expend that - in an air to air interceptor role - and still have targets to engage in close(ish) quarter combat, fuck me we are at war good and proper.

 

[Ag3ma]

What we're saying is with the combination of the stealth technology, assisted over the horizon targeting systems for missiles and the like, an actual dogfight breaking out between two sets of peer fifth (or indeed any) generation of fighter means that shit has truly rocketed fanward.

One can suggest that if two sides go to war where both have countermeasure technology sufficiently superior to each other's missile targetting technology, dogfighting might end up the only means they have to shoot each other down.

 

[Silvanus]

One can suggest that if two sides go to war where both have countermeasure technology sufficiently superior to each other's missile targetting technology, dogfighting might end up the only means they have to shoot each other down.

If Starfox taught me anything, it's that we'll still have cool dogfights even when we're at the stage of interplanetary war.

Also that dogfights involve actual dog pilots.

 

[Gergar12]

They would at best take you hostage and beat you.